Monthly Archives: May 2015

In the United States (my former home), the work ethic is sacrosanct. This dovetails nicely with the traditional Chinese values I grew up with, which marked sloth and leisure as a grave sin. Unfortunately for me, I was predisposed to laziness (I prefer to call it efficiency for ego stroking purposes). My father once said, veins throbbing, that I was by far the laziest of his 8 children. He jokingly remarked that my recent move to the south of France confirmed his assessment.

To clarify, I respect the value of work. I have worked hard sporadically in the past for goals and values I believed in, and took pride in its accomplishment. That said, I never valued work for the sake of work. After all, whatever work was being done had to mean something, otherwise it was just busy work. One also had to ask who benefited from the hard work–most hard work these days have been hijacked to benefit the economic elites, so exhorting people to work hard is simply a means of legitimizing exploitation. Work in it of itself is not an intrinsic good, which is something I believe not enough people understand.

What is work, exactly? Does it have to be paid? Is it anything you do that you exert effort in? Does it have to do with continuing something you hate out of duty? If you enjoy it, is it still work? Is some measure of suffering necessary to legitimize the activity as work?

In the U.S., people on welfare are demonized as lazy and shiftless, who are completely deserving of their circumstance. The lack of employment is considered a character defect, which should be eradicated by social spending cuts and punitive government measures. Perhaps the threat of homelessness and starvation would extinguish the alleged slothful tendencies of the underclass.

Alas, the problem with work is that it is not always available to those who want it, no matter how low they aim. Nor is it something everyone can do–if one becomes incapacitated or ill for any reason, work is an impossibility. It goes without saying that working hard without being able to pay for basic subsistence is no better than unemployment (it’s actually worse, by many measures).

Perhaps the real issue is that American culture fetishizes the idea of work. This is not unsubstantiated snark–according to CNN, record numbers of Americans are forfeiting paid time off in an effort to prove their dedication to their work:

Productivity and stress management trainer and coach Joe Robinson says the issue is driven by a number of factors.

“One, workers are afraid to take their vacations in the layoff era,” Robinson said. “It might mark them as less ‘committed’ than coworkers.

“It’s called defensive overworking. They work long hours and skip vacations to insulate themselves from cutbacks.”

That’s a good worker, chained to the desk. Well, maybe not.

According to Roger Dow, president and CEO of the U.S. Travel Association, 28% of workers surveyed said they’ve declined to take earned days off in order to illustrate their dedication to the job.

“They say, ‘I don’t want to be seen as a slacker,’ ” Dow said. ” ‘I want to be seen as someone who is really dedicated.’

“But it does them no good whatsoever. People who take more time off tend to get more raises and promotions.”

“It’s futile,” Robinson agreed. “People who don’t take their vacations get laid off just like everyone else.” Chuck Thompson, CNN

Another consideration is the prospect of an increased workload after coming back from vacation. It’s common for the remaining staff to do the work of several laid off employees:

Work force cutbacks and “device addiction” are other factors.

“Lean staffing, with more and more people doing the jobs of several people, makes it hard to escape,” Robinson said. “They’re not taking vacations because they have too much work.”

“About 40% (of workers surveyed) say they’re afraid of all the work they’re going to get to when they get back from vacation,” Dow said. “Work pileup scares the hell out of them.”

“Another big reason people aren’t taking their time is that they are caught up in ‘busyness’ and device addiction,” Robinson said. “Finally, many people are so caught up in the performance identity, worth based on what they get done, they feel guilty when they step back.” Chuck Thompson, CNN

It’s worth noting that the CNN report is describing people who work themselves to the bone for someone else, and not people who are working for themselves. Apparently, employees must treat their employment status as a privilege that can be taken away at a moment’s notice, and must be willing to show their gratefulness by working more for less pay. Which begs the question, isn’t work supposed to be about earning your keep? How did work become a privilege of the “fortunate”, and how did we let this happen?

I just landed in France over the weekend, and I am very pleased that it was everything I expected it to be–and more. I only stayed in Paris for one day and now I understand why so many people have fallen in love with the city.

Currently, I am in the south of France, which is wine and foie gras country. I will be settling for good in the south of France, but for now I have some exploring and traveling to do. I also have to learn French from ground zero. It doesn’t help that I’m starting a new language at the ripe old age of 38 (the ideal age is around or before 14 years of age). Still I’m not worried.

What I am worried about though, is my content output speed. I’m supposed to be picking up the speed, not slowing down. That said, rushing content publication isn’t in anybody’s best interest so my apologies for publishing another boring update post.

France is now my new home. It’s not perfect, but I’m absolutely in love with the place. I have so much to see, and now that I’m in Europe I can finally visit Berlin, Santorini, Geneva, Vienna, Iceland, Venice, Florence, Ireland, London, Scotland, Norway, and Sweden. Beijing, St Petersburg, Shanghai, and Moscow are also on the list but I worry that my American citizenship may cause delays in my travel visa application.

I consider myself to be very fortunate, and I plan on making the best of this opportunity to see the world.

I just wanted to say that there has been a lag in publishing new content due to my upcoming move out of the country. My preference is to publish at least 2 or 3 articles a week, but I underestimated how much time it takes to pack properly. I will try to publish another article before I leave next week, but I can’t guarantee it.

I am trying to add a link roll to my main menu bar, but unfortunately I am failing miserably because I don’t completely understand the widget and menu options. I will be getting professional help soon, so in the near future you should see an updated link roll in the menu.

The publishing of new content should be up to speed once I’m settled into my new home. My apologies for any content delays.

Insanity is very badly understood in our society. We think we know it when we see it, despite the vague, wide ranging descriptions we haphazardly concocted to define the condition. According to Wikipedia, insanity is simply:

“…a spectrum of behaviors characterized by certain abnormal mental or behavioral patterns. Insanity may manifest as violations of societal norms, including a person becoming a danger to themselves or others, though not all such acts are considered insanity. In modern usage, insanity is most commonly encountered as an informal unscientific term denoting mental instability, or in the narrow legal context of the insanity defense. In the medical profession the term is now avoided in favor of diagnoses of specific mental disorders; the presence of delusions or hallucinations is broadly referred to as psychosis. When discussing mental illness in general terms, “psychopathology” is considered a preferred descriptor.”

Some authorities would describe insanity as the inability (or refusal) to distinguish reality from fantasy. Unfortunately, this definition is also much too general–almost every member of the human race has been guilty of this sin at some point in our lives, which makes it a highly impractical metric for weeding out the truly mentally unstable among us. On a sadder note, people in troubled or difficult circumstances may choose to deny reality in a bid for self preservation, which can actually be a counter-intuitive act of sanity and survival. The psychology of Stockholm Syndrome bears this out, since captives that are convincingly empathic and sympathetic to their captors have a higher chance of survival than those who openly resist.

Another probable indicator of insanity is the danger a person represents to others, as well as to themselves. Again, this proves problematic because of the lack of specificity and context. Should we equate choosing to regularly eat Cheetos and Twinkies on the same level of self harm as cutting oneself? Is constant speeding on the highway simply a reckless act, or a symptom of insanity since it technically compromises the safety of everyone on the road? As a signal of mental disorder, the danger principle could prove to be a promising idea when discussed within the context of a harm continuum or hierarchy. Unfortunately, continuums of any kind can be quite difficult to define and standardize by nature, which once again leaves us with banal generalities that simultaneously condemn and exonerate all suspects in one blow.

Regardless of what insanity actually is, one thing is absolutely certain–those that are deemed insane or crazy by society are effectively dismissed and neutralized for all intensive purposes. Relegated to living out their days as contemporary cautionary tales, these unfortunates continue to exist, if only for the benefit of those in need of a gentle reminder on the costs of nonconformity and disobedience.

Of course, this isn’t to say that mental illness isn’t real or doesn’t exist. The real problems lie not in its existence and prevalence, but in the institutions we created to deal with it. How we define mental pathology, who we grant the authority with which to define it, and what we do with the people we judge as crazy and mentally unstable are more than just important indicators of who we are as a society–it’s also a good measure of how much more we have to go in terms of our collective goals and values.

Redefining Insanity To Enforce Conformity Of Mind And Action

In today’s more enlightened times, it’s hard to believe that as recently as 1973, homosexuality was an officially recognized mental disorder by the American Psychiatric Association (APA). Despite the fact that psychiatry is considered a field of medicine, it’s all too apparent that it owes more of its development to the prevailing political and cultural ideology than it does to actual science. The newest “mental illness” to be discovered (i.e., invented) in the latest edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) is officially termed as Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD). According to the APA, your child may have ODD if he or she:

Often loses his or her temper

Is often touchy or easily annoyed by others

Is often angry and resentful

Often argues with adults or people in authority

Often actively defies or refuses to comply with adults’ requests or rules

Often deliberately annoys people

Often blames others for his or her mistakes or misbehavior

Is often spiteful or vindictive

Has shown spiteful or vindictive behavior at least twice in the past six months

Given the overwhelming generality of these “symptoms”, one would be hard pressed to find a child that didn’t suffer from the occasional “ODD” moment (a telling acronym, to be sure).

Jonathan Benson of Natural News conveniently cuts to the chase and spells out the obvious: the APA is willfully colluding with our increasingly totalitarian government by officially declaring nonconformity as a treatable mental disorder. In pathologizing normal every day behavior, the average citizen is now at risk of being labeled insane for the crime of behaving in any way that could be construed as strange or uncommon:

“…virtually any uncommon behavior can be declared to be oppositional or defiant simply because it bucks the status quo. Famous minds of the past like Thomas Edison and Alexander Graham Bell, for instance, whose unconventional ideas might have seemed crazy in their day, are the types of folks who today might be declared to have ODD or some other type of mental disease.” Jonathan Benson, Natural News

Legitimizing Abuse: Recognizing The Contributions Of American Psychologists In “Improving” Modern CIA Torture Techniques

In a damning report released by dissenting health professionals and human rights activists, the American Psychological Association (A.P.A.) is exposed as having actively collaborated with the Bush Administration and the CIA in the creation, justification, and promotion of the now infamous torture program. In response to the explosive findings, Rhea Farberman, spokeswoman for the A.P.A., issued a denial to the New York Times, claiming that:

“[There] has never been any coordination between A.P.A. and the Bush administration on how A.P.A. responded to the controversies about the role of psychologists in the interrogations program.”

Unfortunately for Farberman, her dubious statement is directly contradicted by Dr. William Winkenwerder, former Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs. In explaining the Pentagon’s preference for working with psychologists over psychiatrists, he recounts that:

“[The American Psychological Association] clearly supports the role of psychologists in a way our behavioral science consultants operate…The American Psychiatric Association, on the other hand, I think had a great deal of debate about that, and there were some who were less comfortable with that.”

Retired Air Force psychologist James Mitchell actually participated in the torture program he developed, admitting that he waterboarded a few al Qaeda suspects–most notably Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the accused mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. Mitchell’s co-developer of the torture program, former business partner and retired Air Force psychologist Bruce Jessen, has remained tight lipped for the moment citing a nondisclosure agreement. However, Thruthout managed to obtain Jessen’s handwritten notes in 2011, which revealed the real motives behind the torture policy:

“…the handwritten notes obtained exclusively by Truthout drafted two decades ago by Dr. John Bruce Jessen, the psychologist who was under contract to the CIA and credited as being one of the architects of the government’s top-secret torture program, tell a dramatically different story about the reasons detainees were brutalized and it was not just about obtaining intelligence.

Rather, as Jessen’s notes explain, torture was used to “exploit” detainees, that is, to break them down physically and mentally, in order to get them to “collaborate” with government authorities.” Jason Leopold and Jeffrey Kaye, Truthout

Furthermore, Jessen’s notes explicitly outlines the sadistic goals the torture program was supposed to accomplish:

“From the moment you are detained (if some kind of exploitation is your Detainer’s goal) everything your Detainer does will be contrived to bring about these factors: CONTROL, DEPENDENCY, COMPLIANCE AND COOPERATION. Your detainer will work to take away your sense of control. This will be done mostly by removing external control (i.e., sleep, food, communication, personal routines etc. )…Your detainer wants you to feel ‘EVERYTHING’ is dependent on him, from the smallest detail, (food, sleep, human interaction), to your release or your very life … Your detainer wants you to comply with everything he wishes. He will attempt to make everything from personal comfort to your release unavoidably connected to compliance in your mind. [The detainee must] see that [the detainer] has ‘total’ control of you because you are completely dependent on him, and thus you must comply with his wishes. Therefore, it is absolutely inevitable that you must cooperate with him in some way (propaganda, special favors, confession, etc.).”

Have The Arbiters Of Sanity Lost Their Collective Minds?

Regrettably, all indications point to the affirmative. Rampant corruption has taken its toll on whatever legitimacy the field of psychiatry and psychology hope to claim, despite the efforts of an ethical few. Pathologizing the distrust and defiance of authority won’t restore lost trust and legitimacy, though it should succeed in achieving a fearful kind of compliance. As Americans continue to endure more financial and emotional demoralization, it becomes that much more difficult to resist and question authority, no matter how irrational or dangerous the edict. Only in our slow march to totalitarianism shall the truth finally become apparent to all: that the danger in collective madness lies not with the masses, but with the official gatekeepers of sanity who conspire with our government to exterminate the spirit of dissent.